[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Search Archives]

Re: MR: Was Richard maligned?

Poster: David KUIJT <kuijt@umiacs.UMD.EDU>

Alfredo asked about Saint Richard, Third King of that name in England. 

> >Or am I mistaken about needing two hands to fight
> >on horseback?

In brief, Shakespeare was repeating Tudor propaganda about Richard III.
This was necessary because Richard III of blessed memory had a much, much
better claim to the throne than Henry the Usurper, who had about as much
claim to the throne as any randomly picked noble of England at the time.
Henry no sooner got on the throne than married Richard III's niece, who
had a better claim than Henry, and also executed another nephew of
Richard III who also had a much better claim than that parsimonious
villain, Henry VII.

Richard was known as an accomplished and elegant dancer, and a doughty
and brave fighter.  He was largely loved during his reign, and of the
dozen or so murders attributed to him by Shakespeare, all of them have
been conclusively disproved by modern historians save two: the Princes
in the Tower.  About them no evidence exists.  They certainly never
lived to be crowned, but Richard had no strong reason to kill them, as
they had been attaindered (barred from succession).  Henry VII, on the
other hand, had a strong motive to kill them, just as he married their
sister to get a pretext of legitimacy for his reign.

Dafydd ap Gwystl, lover of the White Rose
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://sca.wayfarer.org/merryrose/
            Submissions:  atlantia@atlantia.sca.org
        Admin. requests:  majordomo@atlantia.sca.org